Accident report from the UK

[terryc]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 6/07/2011 12:17 PM, terryc wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:

>> Keep thinking. It should eventually end up with you being locked up as a
>> preventative measure.
>
> You're opposed to the idea of keeping obvious hazards away from high
> speed rail lines?

That isn't the issue. Keep thinking and you might eventually work out
the underlying principles you are fiddling with.

[Matthew Geier]

The trouble with trees next to railway lines, is every time the railway
tries to cut them down every one accuses them of environmental vandalism
and demands they leave the trees alone. The railway corridor generally
isn't large enough that trees on adjacent private land can't cause
problems and between a landowner just ignoring them or calling in the
'greenies' to 'protect' their trees there isn't a lot the railway can do
on that front either.
It's a no-win for the railway as far as I can see.

[terryc]

Sylvia Else wrote:

> Every tree within falling distance of a railway eventually dies and has
> to be cut down lest it fall.

It does?

[terryc]

a_a_a wrote:

> Rare? Frequent. Just about every storm has at least one tree
> 'inconvenience'. eg Turramurra just a few evenings ago.

The inconvenience was, in most cases, first done to the tree;
Inappropriate tree in that location,
Insufficent root zone,
Thinng,
Root disturbance,
Damage to roots,
Changes in drainage, etc.

Then we get to mature trees that have inappropriate development foisted
on them.

[terryc]

Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:

> You can't make everything 100% safe but you can identify a risk then try to
> reduce that risk.

Which has probably been done, but then they decided it wasn't economic,
i.e. it was cheaper to let the occassional misfortune happen than keep
permanent tree management teams.